The Buddhist Monastic Code, Dhamma-Vinaya

by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

From The Buddhist Monastic Code I - The Patimokkha
Rules Translated and Explained - by Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Dhamma-Vinaya was the Buddha's own name for the religion he founded.
Dhamma — the truth — is what he discovered and pointed out as advice
for all who want to gain release from suffering. Vinaya — discipline
— is what he formulated as rules, ideals, and standards of behavior
for those of his followers who went forth from home life to take
up the quest for release in greater earnestness. Although this book
deals primarily with discipline, we should note at the outset that
Dhamma and Vinaya in practice function only together. Neither without
the other can attain the desired goal. In theory they may be separate,
but in the person who practices them they merge as qualities developed
in the mind and character.

"Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities
lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered and not
to being fettered; to self-effacement and not to self-aggrandizement;
to modesty and not to ambition; to contentment and not to discontent;
to seclusion and not to entanglement; to energy and not to idleness;
to being unburdensome and not to being burdensome': You may definitely
hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's
instruction.'" (Cv.X.5) Ultimately, the Buddha said, just as the
sea has a single taste, that of salt, so too the Dhamma and Vinaya
have a single taste: that of release. The connection between discipline
and release is spelled out in a passage that recurs at several points
in the Canon:

"Discipline is for the sake of restraint, restraint for the sake
of freedom from remorse, freedom from remorse for the sake of joy,
joy for the sake of rapture, rapture for the sake of tranquillity,
tranquillity for the sake of pleasure, pleasure for the sake of
concentration, concentration for the sake of knowledge and vision
of things as they are, knowledge and vision of things as they are
for the sake of disenchantment, disenchantment for the sake of dispassion,
dispassion for the sake of release, release for the sake of knowledge
and vision of release, knowledge and vision of release for the sake
of total unbinding without clinging." (Pv.XII.2) In establishing
his religion of release, though, the Buddha did not simply set out
a body of recommendations and rules. He also founded a company (parisa)
of followers. This company falls into four main groups: bhikkhus
(monks), bhikkhunis (nuns), lay men, and lay women. Although the
Buddha saw no need to organize the laity in any manner, he arranged
for the bhikkhus and bhikkhunis — who had given up the entanglements
of the household life to devote themselves more fully to the goal
of release — to develop into communities; and saw that they needed,
as all communities do, ideals and standards, rules and customs to
ensure their stability. This need is what gave rise to the Vinaya.

In the early years of the Buddha's career, the texts tell us,
there was no need to formulate disciplinary rules. All of the bhikkhus
in his following — the Community of bhikkhunis had not yet been
started — were men of high personal attainments who had succeeded
in subduing many or all of the defilements of their minds. They
knew his teachings well and behaved accordingly. The Canon tells
of how Ven. Sariputta, one of the Buddha's foremost disciples, asked
the Buddha at an early date to formulate a Patimokkha, or code of
rules, to ensure that the holy life the Buddha had founded would
last long, just as a thread holding together a floral arrangement
ensures that the flowers are not scattered by the wind. The Buddha
replied that the time for such a code had not yet come, for even
the most backward of the men in the Community at that time had already
had their first glimpse of the goal. Only when mental effluents
(asava) made themselves felt in the Community would there be a need
for a Patimokkha.

As time passed, the conditions that provided an opening for the
effluents within the Community eventually began to appear. The Bhaddali
Sutta (M.65) presents the Buddha at a later point in his career
listing these conditions as five:

Ven. Bhaddali: "Why is it, venerable sir, that there used to
be fewer training rules and more bhikkhus established in the knowledge
of Awakening? And why is it that there are now more training rules
and fewer bhikkhus established in the knowledge of Awakening?" [Bhaddali,
who has been unwilling to abide by the training rules, seems to
be suggesting that the rise in the number of training rules is itself
the cause for fewer bhikkhus' attaining Awakening. The Buddha, however,
offers a different explanation.] The Buddha: "So it is, Bhaddali.
When beings have begun to degenerate, and the true Dhamma has begun
to disappear, there are more training rules and fewer bhikkhus established
in the knowledge of Awakening. The Teacher does not lay down a training
rule for his disciples as long as there are no cases where the conditions
that offer a foothold for the effluents have arisen in the Community.
But when there are cases where the conditions that offer a foothold
for the effluents have arisen in the Community, then the Teacher
lays down a training rule for his disciples so as to counteract
those very conditions.

"There are no cases where the conditions that offer a foothold
for the effluents have arisen in the Community as long as the Community
has not become large. But when the Community has become large, then
there are cases where the conditions that offer a foothold for the
effluents arise in the Community, and the Teacher then lays down
a training rule for his disciples so as to counteract those very
conditions... When the Community possesses great material gains...
great status... a large body of learning... when the Community is
long-standing, then there are cases where the conditions that offer
a foothold for the effluents arise in the Community, and the Teacher
then lays down a training rule for his disciples so as to counteract
those very conditions."

Thus the rules themselves were not the cause for degeneracy in
the Community, and the conditions that provided a foothold for the
effluents were not themselves effluents. Rather, the growing complexity
of the Community provided the opportunity for bhikkhus to act on
the basis of their defilements in a growing variety of ways, and
the rules — although they could not prevent any of the five conditions
— had to become correspondingly complex to counteract the opportunities
those conditions provided for unenlightened behavior.

Even when these conditions did arise, though, the Buddha did
not set out a full code at once. Instead, he formulated rules one
at a time, in response to events. The considerations that went into
formulating each rule are best illustrated by the events surrounding
the formulation of the first.

Ven. Sudinna, the story goes, had strong faith in the Buddha
and had ordained after receiving his parents' grudging consent.
He was their only child and, though married, was childless. His
parents, fearing that the government would confiscate their property
at their death if it had no heir, devised various schemes to lure
Ven. Sudinna back to the lay life, but to no avail. Finally, his
mother realized that he was firm in his intention to stay a bhikkhu
and so asked him at least to have intercourse with his former wife
so that their property would have an heir. Ven. Sudinna consented,
took his wife into the forest, and had intercourse three times.

Immediately he felt remorseful and eventually confessed his deed
to his fellow bhikkhus. Word reached the Buddha, who called a meeting
of the Community, questioned Ven. Sudinna, and gave him a rebuke.
The rebuke fell into two major parts. In the first part, the Buddha
reminded Ven. Sudinna of his position as a samana — a contemplative
— and that his behavior was unworthy of his position. Also, the
Buddha pointed out to him of the aims of the teaching and noted
that his behavior ran counter to them. The implication here was
that Ven. Sudinna had not only acted inconsistently with the content
of the teaching, but had also shown callous disregard for the Buddha's
compassionate aims in making the Dhamma known.

"'Misguided man, it is unseemly, unbecoming, unsuitable, and
unworthy of a contemplative; improper and not to be done... Have
I not taught the Dhamma in many ways for the sake of dispassion
and not for passion; for unfettering and not for fettering; for
letting go and not for clinging? Yet here, while I have taught the
Dhamma for dispassion, you set your heart on passion; while I have
taught the Dhamma for unfettering, you set your heart on being fettered;
while I have taught the Dhamma for letting go, you set your heart
on clinging. "'Misguided man, haven't I taught the Dhamma in various
ways for the fading of passion, the sobering of pride, the subduing
of thirst, the destruction of attachment, the severing of the round,
the depletion of craving, dispassion, stopping, unbinding? Haven't
I advocated abandoning sensual pleasures, understanding sensual
perceptions, subduing sensual thirst, destroying sensual preoccupations,
calming sensual fevers?... Misguided man, this neither inspires
faith in the faithless nor increases the faithful. Rather, it inspires
lack of faith in the faithless and wavering in some of the faithful.'"

The second part of the rebuke dealt in terms of personal qualities:
those that a bhikkhu practicing discipline is to abandon, and those
he is to develop.

"Then the Blessed One, having in various ways rebuked Ven. Sudinna,
having spoken in dispraise of being burdensome, demanding, arrogant,
discontented, entangled, and indolent; in various ways having spoken
in praise of being unburdensome, undemanding, modest, content, austere,
scrupulous, gracious, self-effacing, and energetic; having given
a Dhamma talk on what is seemly and becoming for bhikkhus, addressed
the bhikkhus." This was where the Buddha formulated the training
rule, after first stating his reasons for doing so.

"'In that case, bhikkhus, I will formulate a training rule for
the bhikkhus with ten aims in mind: the excellence of the Community,
the peace of the Community, the curbing of the shameless, the comfort
of well-behaved bhikkhus, the restraint of effluents related to
the present life, the prevention of effluents related to the next
life, the arousing of faith in the faithless, the increase of the
faithful, the establishment of the true Dhamma, and the fostering
of discipline.'" These reasons fall into three main types. The first
two are external: 1) to ensure peace and well-being within the Community
itself, and 2) to foster and protect faith among the laity, on whom
the bhikkhus depend for their support. (The origin stories of the
various rules depict the laity as being very quick to generalize.
One bhikkhu misbehaves, and they complain, "How can these bhikkhus
do that?") The third type of reason, though, is internal: The rule
is to help restrain and prevent mental effluents within the individual
bhikkhus. Thus the rules aim not only at the external well-being
of the Community, but also at the internal well-being of the individual.
This latter point soon becomes apparent to anyone who seriously
tries to keep to the rules, for they foster mindfulness and circumspection
in one's actions, qualities that carry over into the training of
the mind.

Over the course of time the Buddha formulated more than 200 major
and minor rules, forming the Patimokkha that was recited fortnightly
in each Community of bhikkhus. In addition, he formulated many other
minor rules that were memorized by those of his followers who specialized
in the subject of discipline, but nothing is known for sure of what
format they used to organize this body of knowledge during his lifetime.

After his total nibbana, though, his followers made a concerted
effort to establish a standard canon of Dhamma and Vinaya, and the
Pali Canon as we know it began to take shape. The Vinaya was organized
into two main parts: 1) the Sutta Vibhanga, the 'Exposition of the
Text' (which from here on we will refer to simply as the Vibhanga),
containing almost all the material dealing with the Patimokkha rules;
and 2) the Khandhakas, or Groupings, which contain the remaining
material organized loosely according to subject matter. The Khandhakas
themselves are divided into two parts, the Mahavagga, or Greater
Chapter, and the Cullavagga, or Lesser Chapter. Historians estimate
that the Vibhanga and Khandhakas reached their present form no later
than the 2nd century B.C.E., and that the Parivara, or Addenda —
a summary and study guide — was added a few centuries later, closing
the Vinaya Pitaka, the part of the Canon dealing with discipline.

Since the purpose of this book is to translate and explain the
Patimokkha, we are most directly concerned with the Vibhanga. It
is organized as follows: The rules in the Patimokkha are presented
one by one, each rule preceded by an origin story telling the events
that led up to its formulation. In some instances a rule went through
one or more reformulations, in which case an additional story is
provided for each amendment to show what prompted it.

After the final statement of the rule is a word-commentary, which
explains in detail most of the important terms in the rule. For
many of the rules this commentary includes one or more "wheels,"
or tables, giving the contingencies connected with the rule, working
out all their possible permutations and passing judgment as to what
penalty, if any, each permutation entails. For example, the discussion
of the first rule contains a wheel that gives all the objects with
which a person might have sexual intercourse, lists them against
the variables of the sort of intercourse and whether or not the
bhikkhu involved gives his consent, and announces the penalty for
each possible combination of factors.

Following the word-commentary for each rule is a section of no-offense
clauses, listing extenuating circumstances under which a bhikkhu
would be exempted from the penalty imposed by the rule.

Finally, for the major rules, there is the Vinita Vatthu, or
List of Precedents, which documents various cases related to the
rule and gives verdicts as to what penalty, if any, they entail.

The Vibhanga forms the basis for most of the explanations of
the training rules given in this book. However, there are occasional
questions on which the Vibhanga is unclear or silent. To answer
these questions, I have turned either to the Khandhakas or to the
commentarial literature that has grown up around the Vinaya over
the course of the centuries. The primary works I have consulted
are these:

1) The Samanta-pasadika — "The Thoroughly Inspiring" — (from
here on referred to as the Commentary), a commentary on the Vinaya
Pitaka compiled in the 5th century C.E. by Bhadantacariya Buddhaghosa,
who based his work on ancient commentaries brought to Sri Lanka
from India at an unknown date and translated into Sinhalese. From
internal evidence in Buddhaghosa's writings — he compiled commentaries
on a major portion of the Canon — historians have estimated that
the ancient commentaries were collected over a span of several centuries
and closed in approximately the 2nd century C.E. Buddhaghosa's work
thus contains material much older than his date would indicate.

By Buddhaghosa's time a belief had grown up that the ancient
commentaries were the work of the Buddha's immediate disciples and
thus indisputably conveyed the true intent of the Canon. However,
as we shall see below, the ancient commentaries themselves did not
make such exalted claims for themselves.

Still, the existence of this belief in the 5th century placed
certain constraints on Buddhaghosa's work. At points where the ancient
commentaries conflicted with the Canon, he had to write the discrepancies
off as copier's mistakes or else side with the commentaries against
the Canon. At a few points, such as his explanation of Pacittiya
9, he provides arguments against the ancient commentaries' interpretation
but then backs off, saying that the ancient commentaries must be
right because their authors knew the Buddha's intentions. Perhaps
pressure from the elder bhikkhus at the Mahavihara in Anuradhapura
— the place where the ancient commentaries had been preserved and
where Buddhaghosa was allowed to do his work — was what made him
back off in this way. At any rate, only on points where the different
ancient commentaries were silent or gave divergent opinions did
he feel free to express his opinions.

2) The Kankha-vitarani — "The Subjugator of Uncertainty" — (the
K/Commentary), a commentary on the Patimokkha also compiled by Bhadantacariya
Buddhaghosa. Although this work is largely a synopsis of material
in the Commentary, it contains some independent material, in particular
a system of classifying the offenses under each training rule into
their component factors. It also contradicts the Commentary from
time to time.

3) The Sarattha-dipani — "The Essence-Meaning Illustrator" —
(the Sub-commentary), a sub-commentary on the Commentary, written
in Sri Lanka in the 12th century C.E. by a Ven. Sariputta, the first
Mahasami, or head of the Sri Lankan Sangha, after that Sangha was
reformed and unified under the patronage of King Parakrama Bahu
I. This work not only explains the Commentary, but also deals with
points in the Canon itself, sometimes indicating passages where
the Commentary has deviated from the Canon. It also quotes as authoritative
the judgments of three ancient texts, the Ganthipadesa, which are
no longer extant, and of Ven. Buddhadatta, a scholar of the 4th
century C.E. who wrote two extant Vinaya guides.

4) The Vimati-vinodani — "The Remover of Perplexity" — (the V/Sub-commentary),
another 12th-century sub-commentary, written in southern India by
a Ven. Kassapa, who also wrote the Mohavicchedani, a synopsis of
the Abhidhamma Pitaka and Buddhaghosa's commentaries on it.

5) The Attha-yojana — "The Interpretation of the Meaning" — (the
A/Sub-commentary), a sub-commentary that, unlike the works of Vens.
Sariputta and Kassapa, does little more than analyze the language
of the Commentary. This was written in the 18th century C.E. by
a Burmese scholar named Ven. Ñanakitti

From here on "the ancient commentaries" will denote the original
commentaries that Buddhaghosa had to work with, and "the commentaries"
all five works listed above.

In addition to the Canon and the commentaries, I have referred
to the texts listed in the Bibliography. Two of these deserve special
mention here.

1) The Vinaya Mukha, a guide to the Vinaya written in Thai in
the early 20th century by Prince Vajirañana-varorasa, a son of King
Rama IV who ordained as a bhikkhu and eventually held the position
of Supreme Patriarch of the Thai Sangha for many years. This work
he wrote as part of his attempt to unite the two major sects of
the Thai Sangha. The attempt failed, but the book is still used
as the official textbook on Vinaya for the examinations run by the
Thai Ecclesiastical Board. Prince Vajirañana in his interpretations
often disagrees openly not only with the commentaries, but also
with the Vibhanga itself. Some of his disagreements with the commentaries
are well-taken, some not.

I include the book here both for the valuable suggestions it
makes for dealing with unclear points in the older texts and because
it is taken as authoritative through much of Thailand. It has been
translated into English, as The Entrance to the Vinaya, but I have
chosen to translate anew all the passages I quote from it.

2) The Book of Discipline, a translation of the entire Vinaya
Pitaka into English by Miss I. B. Horner. Although I have learned
much from Miss Horner's work, there are points where my translations
and conclusions differ from hers. Since many readers will want to
check the information in this book against hers, I have marked these
points with a "(%)." Anyone curious as to which interpretation is
correct should check the passages in question against the Royal
Thai edition of the Pali Canon, my major source throughout this
book.

Disagreements among the texts.

One of the difficulties in trying to collate all these various
texts is that there are points on which the Vibhanga is at variance
with the wording of the Patimokkha rules, and the commentaries are
at variance with the Canon. This forces us to decide which strata
of the texts to take as authoritative. As far as discrepancies between
the Vibhanga and the rules are concerned, the following passage
in the Cullavagga (X.4) suggests that the Buddha himself gave preference
to the way the bhikkhus worked out the rules in the Vibhanga:

"As she was standing at a respectful distance, Maha-pajapati
Gotami spoke thus to the Blessed One: 'Lord, those rules of training
for the bhikkhunis that are in common with those for the bhikkhus:
What line of conduct should we follow in regard to them?' "'Those
rules of training for the bhikkhunis, Gotami, that are in common
with those for the bhikkhus: As the bhikkhus train themselves, so
should you train yourselves'... (emphasis added).

"'And those rules of training for bhikkhunis that are not in
common with those for bhikkhus: What line of conduct should we follow
in regard to them?'

"'Those rules of training for the bhikkhunis, Gotami, that are
not in common with those for the bhikkhus: Train yourselves in them
as they are formulated.'"

This passage implies that already in the time of the Buddha the
bhikkhus had begun working out a way to interpret the rules that
in some cases was not exactly in line with the way the Buddha had
originally formulated them. Some people have read this passage as
suggesting that the Buddha, though resigned to this development,
was displeased with it, but this would contradict the many passages
in the Canon where the Buddha speaks in high praise of Ven. Upali,
the foremost of his bhikkhu disciples in terms of his knowledge
of Vinaya, who was responsible for teaching the rules to the other
bhikkhus and who was largely responsible for the shape of the Vinaya
as we now have it. It seems more likely that the Buddha in this
passage is simply saying that, to avoid unnecessary controversy,
the way the bhikkhus had worked out the implications of the rules
was to be accepted as is.

Because this development eventually led to the Vibhanga, we can
be confident that in adhering to the Vibhanga we are acting as the
Buddha would have us do. And when we check the few places where
the Vibhanga deviates from the wording of the rules, we find that
almost invariably it has tried to reconcile contradictions among
the rules themselves, and between the rules and the Khandhakas,
so as to make the Vinaya a more coherent whole. This is particularly
true with rules that touch on formal acts of the Community. Apparently
many of these rules were formulated before the general patterns
for formal acts were finalized in the Khandhakas. Thus, after the
patterns were established, the compilers of the Vibhanga were sometimes
forced to deviate from the wording of the rules to bring them into
line with the patterns.

As for contradictions between the Commentary and the Vibhanga,
this is a more controversial area, with two extremes of thought.
One is to reject the Commentary entirely, as it is not the Buddha's
word, for modern historical scholarship has shown decisively that
it contains material dating many hundreds of years after the Buddha's
passing away. This position assumes, though, that in the areas where
the Canon is vague or unclear we have nothing to learn from the
accumulated wisdom and experience of those who have lived the bhikkhu's
life before us. The other extreme is to accept the Commentary as
superseding the Vibhanga entirely, in line with the traditional
belief that grew up around it: that it was composed at the First
Council to express the true intent of those who composed the Vibhanga
and yet somehow were unable to put what they really meant to say
into the Canon itself.

Neither of these extremes is in line with the Great Standards
for judging Dhamma and Vinaya that — as the Maha-parinibbana Sutta
(D.16) reports — the Buddha formulated at Bhoganagara shortly before
his passing away:

"There is the case where a bhikkhu says this: 'In the Blessed
One's presence have I heard this, in the Blessed One's presence
have I received this: This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this
is the Teacher's instruction.' His statement is neither to be approved
nor scorned. Without approval or scorn, take careful note of his
words and make them stand against the Suttas and tally them against
the Vinaya. If, on making them stand against the Suttas and tallying
them against the Vinaya, you find that they don't stand with the
Suttas or tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: 'This is not
the word of the Blessed One; this bhikkhu has misunderstood it'
— and you should reject it. But if... they stand with the Suttas
and tally with the Vinaya, you may conclude: 'This is the word of
the Blessed One; this bhikkhu has understood it rightly.'" [The
same criteria are to be used when the bhikkhu cites as his authority
a Community with well-known leading elders; a monastery with many
learned elders who know the tradition, who have memorized the Dhamma,
the Vinaya, and the Matika (the precursor to the Abhidhamma as we
know it); or a single elder who knows the tradition.]

In other words, the question is not one of the authority on whose
word a claim is based, but one of consistency: Only if a statement
stands up under comparison with the Canon should it be accepted
as true Dhamma or Vinaya. The same principle holds for statements
that are said to be not the word of the Buddha, but the opinion
of respected teachers.

This point is borne out by two important passages in the texts.
One is the narrative of the Second Council, during which the bhikkhus
of Vesali defended ten practices on the grounds that they had learned
them from their teachers. The elders who judged the case, though,
insisted on evaluating the practices in terms of whether or not
they adhered to the Canon. The primary point of controversy — the
question of whose authority was greater, the Canon's or the teachers'
— was point six:

"'The practice of what is habitual, sir — is it allowable?' "'What
is the practice of what is habitual, my friend?'

"'To practice (thinking), this is the way my preceptor habitually
practiced; this is the way my teacher habitually practiced — is
this allowable?'

"'The practice of what is habitual is sometimes allowable, sometimes
not.'" (CV.XII.2.8)

What this means, as the elders showed in the way they conducted
the meeting, is that one's teacher's and preceptor's practices are
to be followed only when they are in accordance with the Canon.

The second passage is the discussion of the Great Standards in
the Commentary to the Maha-parinibbana Sutta, which concludes that
the commentaries are to be accepted only where they are in agreement
with the Canon. Apparently the teachers who compiled the ancient
commentaries took a more modest view of their authority than did
the elders of the Mahavihara at the time of Buddhaghosa and did
not pretend to supersede the Canon as the final word on what is
and is not true Dhamma and Vinaya.

Some may object that to pass judgment on the Commentary is to
lack respect for the tradition, but actually it is because of respect
for the compilers of the Vibhanga that I make the following assumptions
in checking the Commentary against the Vibhanga:

1) The compilers of the Vibhanga were intelligent enough to be
consistent within the discussion of each rule. Any explanation based
on the premise that they were not consistent should give way to
an explanation showing that they were.

2) The compilers were well enough acquainted with the contingencies
surrounding each rule that they knew which factors were and were
not crucial in determining what is and is not an offense. Any explanation
that adds or subtracts factors from those mentioned in the Vibhanga
should give way to one that follows the Vibhanga's analysis.

3) The compilers, in reporting the precedents in the Vinita Vatthu
— the cases the Buddha judged against an existing rule — were careful
enough to include all the important factors bearing on the judgment.
Any explanation that requires rewriting the precedents, adding extra
details extraneous to the Vibhanga to account for the judgment,
should give way to an explanation that can make sense out of the
precedents as they are reported and in terms of the analyses presented
elsewhere in the Vibhanga.

It's not that I take any joy in arguing with the Commentary.
In fact, wherever possible, I have been happy to give it the benefit
of the doubt, and on many points I am very much in its debt. Still,
now that Buddhism is coming to the West, I feel it is time to stop
and take stock of the tradition, and to check the later traditions
against the earliest sources. This is especially important in a
way of thought and life that, from the very beginning, has appealed
to reason and investigation rather than to blindly accepted authority.
In doing this, I am simply following a pattern that has repeated
itself through the history of the Theravadin tradition: that of
returning to the original principles whenever the religion reaches
a historic turning point.

There is, of course, a danger in being too independent in interpreting
the tradition, in that strongly held opinions can lead to disharmony
in the Community. Thus in evaluating the Commentary against the
Canon, I do not want to imply that my conclusions are the only ones
possible. Important points may have slipped my attention or escaped
my grasp. For this reason, even in instances where I think that
the Commentary does not do justice to the Vibhanga, I have tried
to give a faithful account of the important points from the Commentary
so that those who wish to take it as their authority may still use
this book as a guide. If there are any points on which I am mistaken,
I would be pleased if knowledgeable people would correct me.

At the same time, I hope that this book will show that there
are many areas on which the Vibhanga is unclear and lends itself
to a variety of equally valid interpretations. For proof of this,
we need only look at the various traditions that have developed
in the different Theravadin countries, and even within each country.
For some reason, although people tend to be very tolerant of different
interpretations of the Dhamma, they can be very intolerant of different
interpretations of the Vinaya and can get into heated arguments
over minor issues having very little to do with the training of
the mind.

I have tried to make the point throughout this book that any
interpretation based on a sound reading of the Canon should be respected:
that each bhikkhu should follow the interpretations of the Community
in which he is living, as long as they do not conflict with the
Canon, so as to avoid conflict over minor matters in daily life;
and that he should also show respect for the differing interpretations
of other Communities where they too do not conflict with the Canon,
so as to avoid the pitfalls of pride and narrow-mindedness.

This is especially true now that monasteries of different nationalities
are taking root in close proximity to one another in the West. In
the past, Thais, Burmese, and Sri Lankans could look down on one
another's traditions without danger of causing friction, as they
lived in separate countries and spoke different languages. Now,
however, we have become neighbors and have begun to speak common
languages, so it is best that we take to heart the writings of the
Chinese pilgrims who visited India centuries ago. They reported
that even after the early Buddhists had split into 18 schools, each
with its own Tripitaka and Patimokkha, and the Mahayanists had added
their texts to the tradition, bhikkhus belonging to different schools
could be found living together in the same monastery, practicing
and conducting communal business in peace and harmony. Theirs is
a worthy example. We should not let our minor differences become
stumbling blocks on our way.

My aim throughout this book has been practical. I have avoided
dealing with academic issues concerning the authenticity and reliability
of the tradition, and instead have tried simply to report and explain
what the tradition has to say. Of course, I have had to be selective.
Whatever the unconscious factors that have influenced my choice
of material, the conscious considerations shaping this book are
briefly as follows:

We are dealing primarily with rules, but rules are not the only
way to express disciplinary norms, and the texts we are surveying
express their norms in a variety of forms: as rules, principles,
models, and virtues. The different forms are best suited for different
purposes. Principles, models, and virtues are meant as personal,
subjective standards and tend to be loosely defined. Their interpretation
and application are left to the judgment of the individual. Rules
are meant to serve as more objective standards. To work, they must
be precisely defined in a way acceptable to the Community at large.
The compilers of the Canon, recognizing this need, provided definitions
for most of the terms in the rules, and the authors of the commentaries
continued this task, carrying it out with even greater thoroughness.
Thus much of this book, in reporting these texts, is concerned with
the definition of terms.

This need for precision, though, accounts for the weakness of
rules in general as universal guides to behavior. First, there is
the question of where to draw the line between what is and is not
an infraction of the rule. A clear break-off point is needed because
rules — unlike principles — deal in two colors: black and white.
In some cases, it is difficult to find a clear break-off point that
corresponds exactly to one's sense of what is right and wrong, and
so it is necessary to include the areas of gray either with the
white or the black. In general, but not always, the Vibhanga's position
is to include the gray with the white, and to rely on the principles
of the Dhamma to encourage the individual bhikkhu to stay away from
the gray.

Take, for instance, the rule against masturbation. The Vibhanga
limits this rule to forbidding only those forms of masturbation
that aim at ejaculation, for if it had drawn the line anywhere else,
it would have become an offense for a bhikkhu simply to scratch
himself. Thus self-stimulation that does not aim at ejaculation
is not an offense, although in many cases it is clearly against
the spirit of the Dhamma. The Vinaya Mukha notes, disapprovingly,
a number of older Vinaya guides that like to dwell on these areas
of gray and seem to delight in figuring out ways to avoid an offense
by working around the letter of the rules. In this book I am taking
a different tack: Under those rules that include large areas of
gray with the white, I have noted a few relevant principles from
the Dhamma to spell out a wise policy with regard to the gray areas
— not to reformulate the rule, but simply as a reminder that, as
noted above, the Vinaya without the Dhamma does not suffice as a
guide to the goal.

Another drawback resulting from the need for precision in rules
is that the more precisely a rule is defined to suit a particular
time and place, the less well it may fit other times and places.
The compilers of the Canon, in order to make up for this weakness,
thus provided the origin stories and precedents to show the type
of situation the rule was intended to prevent, providing principles
and models that indicate the spirit of the rule and aid in applying
it to differing contexts. In writing this book I have often made
reference to these stories, to give this added dimension.

Admittedly, the stories do not make for inspiring reading. For
example, instead of reading about bhikkhus accepting a meal at a
donor's house and then uplifting the donor with a talk on Dhamma,
we read about Ven. Udayin accepting a meal at the dwelling of a
bhikkhuni who was his former wife, and the two of them sitting there
exposing their genitals to each other. Still, the stories do remind
us that the more inspiring stories we read in the discourses took
place in a very real human world, and they also reveal the insight
and understated wit of those who framed and interpreted the rules.
The element of wit here is especially important, for without it
there is no true understanding of human nature, and no intelligent
system of discipline.

Finally, in compiling this book, I have tried to include whatever
seems most worth knowing for the bhikkhu who aims at fostering the
qualities of discipline in his life — so as to help train his mind
and live in peace with his fellow bhikkhus — and for anyone who
wants to support and encourage the bhikkhus in that aim.

Numbers in the references to Mv, Cv, and Pv denote
chapter, section and sub-section; in the references to D and
M, discourse (sutta); in the references to S and A, section
(samyutta or nipata) and discourse; in the references to Dhp,
verse; in the references to Vism, chapter and paragraph.

About: Hinduwebsite.com provides original
and scholarly information about Hinduism and related religions, society and
culture. We promote tolerance and the highest ideals reflected in these cultures.
We have been serving the world community since 1999.
More...